Fill the gap with something tangible. You cannot, and will not.

According to one branch of chaos theory "order" is actually a state of chaos with a higher level of symmetry. Now life can get very interesting when you start to consider everything as being in a state of symmetric chaos, or a state of un-symmetric chaos (which is different to being in an asymmetric state of chaos, but you don't need to worry about that - yet, as actually asymmetry an un-symmetry are not the same, but are inversions and reversions of each other - at one time I could write down all the Hamiltonian (and other) transformations required to prove that lot for a non-trivial system... Enough to make one's nose bleed on a good day, or drive you to drink on a bad day.

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

According to one branch of chaos theory "order" is actually a state of chaos with a higher level of symmetry. Now life can get very interesting when you start to consider everything as being in a state of symmetric chaos, or a state of un-symmetric chaos (which is different to being in an asymmetric state of chaos, but you don't need to worry about that - yet, as actually asymmetry an un-symmetry are not the same, but are inversions and reversions of each other - at one time I could write down all the Hamiltonian (and other) transformations required to prove that lot for a non-trivial system... Enough to make one's nose bleed on a good day, or drive you to drink on a bad day.

Enlighten me.

Obviously, as you don't understand a few of the basics enlightening you is going to be a long, hard task.
First, symmetry is (and this is a simple, but inaccurate definition) is the ability to, by rotation, inversion, reflection, or supposition, or combinations thereof to produce an image that appears to be the mirror of the object you are studying. With me - it gets harder from here...
Chaos is the property assigned to the number of non-symetric rotations, reflections, or inversions required to demonstrate that two images (or objects) are not linearly, or non-linearly related to each other in a simplistic manner. Simply put, if you can't easily predict where an image or object is going to be, or look like it is said to have a highly chaotic nature.

Of course, at this point I should introduce the statistical elements required to assist in the study. These are used to reduce the complex nature of the problem into one that is understandable - for a fuller explanation I suggest you go and have a good few terms (semesters) studying statistics in an applied field such as radio astronomy, nuclear physics, quantum mechanics - This period of study may give you a better understanding of why your suppositions of recent weeks have been rather weak on the ground, and not a coherent answer to what is actually a very important question - do scientists ever place theory over observable fact? (I believe this question is indeed a paraphrase of the one you choose to interpret as the thread title - which actually asks a different, equally as important question: "Do scientists ever let their system of beliefs get in the way of their work?")

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

That would be Design, not chance.

It would be pure chance which reveals an underlying structure--you may call it design but I could write an equation for the shape of the resulting curve from logic and math. Not so hard to understand if you study probability and statistics and while you are at it throw in a little formal logic. You will be the better man for it !!

Obviously, as you don't understand a few of the basics enlightening you is going to be a long, hard task.

I have time...

First, symmetry is (and this is a simple, but inaccurate definition) is the ability to, by rotation, inversion, reflection, or supposition, or combinations thereof to produce an image that appears to be the mirror of the object you are studying. With me - it gets harder from here...

So far...

Chaos is the property assigned to the number of non-symetric rotations, reflections, or inversions required to demonstrate that two images (or objects) are not linearly, or non-linearly related to each other in a simplistic manner. Simply put, if you can't easily predict where an image or object is going to be, or look like it is said to have a highly chaotic nature.

Why non-symetric? In nature nothing is a perfect anything. So, if Chaos is non-symetric in nature so would be Order. But Order here is also not perfect. I don't follow you all the way here. I understand that the reflections, or inversions will not line up but even with that why do you think they cannot be predicted? I understand that everything in nature is highly chaotic but in the end we have something not nothing so in the end we have Order as Designed, not random. I believe that there are a few things in nature that are a perfect something, a singularity perfectly round. And the reflections of it on the inside of the event horizon for what it has taken in are a perfect example of what it has taken in. Information is never lost. Perfect.

Is there nothing absolute with you? Is there nothing with you that is absolutely wrong? Or, is there something you call absolutely the truth?

Of course, at this point I should introduce the statistical elements required to assist in the study. These are used to reduce the complex nature of the problem into one that is understandable - for a fuller explanation I suggest you go and have a good few terms (semesters) studying statistics in an applied field such as radio astronomy, nuclear physics, quantum mechanics - This period of study may give you a better understanding of why your suppositions of recent weeks have been rather weak on the ground, and not a coherent answer to what is actually a very important question - do scientists ever place theory over observable fact? (I believe this question is indeed a paraphrase of the one you choose to interpret as the thread title - which actually asks a different, equally as important question: "Do scientists ever let their system of beliefs get in the way of their work?")

The answer is, yes, to their system of non-belief.

That would be Design, not chance.

It would be pure chance which reveals an underlying structure--you may call it design but I could write an equation for the shape of the resulting curve from logic and math. Not so hard to understand if you study probability and statistics and while you are at it throw in a little formal logic. You will be the better man for it !!

Thanks, but am I not a good man without it? Is it required, to be a better man?

That would be Design, not chance.

It would be pure chance which reveals an underlying structure--you may call it design but I could write an equation for the shape of the resulting curve from logic and math. Not so hard to understand if you study probability and statistics and while you are at it throw in a little formal logic. You will be the better man for it !!

Thanks, but am I not a good man without it? Is it required, to be a better man?

Either you would be convinced by what many of us have said or have real "weaponry" to use in your debates.

My apologies, I should have said perfect sphere while talking about a singularity.

Then again I'm a imperfect being.

We should remember that we are looking for patterns in nature and their possible numerical representation. An example of such patterns are the cubes in a beehive where honey is being stored.

As mentioned, 33183434030525011217 equals 73*65657*6923368254097

Once again, please take a number like 33183434030525011219 for example.

This number is some 2 higher than the previous one.

This number is also composite: 7*40543*8610139*13579921

Also, each of the four composite numbers are again all prime numbers, meaning that 40543 is only divisble by 1 and itself (40543).

If you try multiply 33183434030525011217 with 33183434030525011219 and then add 1, you end up with an even number.

1101140294058205391135301533859025843524 equals 2*2*3*3*14633*14633*377952049369291*377952049369291

These numbers are also prime numbers on their own.

Oh, what strange. In fact I double-checked this number. What is the next prime number, by the way?

This number can therefore not be even, but it should be clear that such factorization could return the individual patterns or structures where the complete structure is based on these individual elements.

In the same way an E.T. could equally well be Battlestar Galactica or the Death Star / Darth Vader's command ship as it could be the shining blue-white "Star Queen Nebula" M16, which is located in the constellation of Serpens Cauda.

We should remember that we are looking for patterns in nature and their possible numerical representation. An example of such patterns are the cubes in a beehive where honey is being stored.

As mentioned, 33183434030525011217 equals 73*65657*6923368254097

Once again, please take a number like 33183434030525011219 for example.

This number is some 2 higher than the previous one.

This number is also composite: 7*40543*8610139*13579921

Also, each of the four composite numbers are again all prime numbers, meaning that 40543 is only divisble by 1 and itself (40543).

If you try multiply 33183434030525011217 with 33183434030525011219 and then add 1, you end up with an even number.

1101140294058205391135301533859025843524 equals 2*2*3*3*14633*14633*377952049369291*377952049369291

These numbers are also prime numbers on their own.

Oh, what strange. In fact I double-checked this number. What is the next prime number, by the way?

This number can therefore not be even, but it should be clear that such factorization could return the individual patterns or structures where the complete structure is based on these individual elements.

In the same way an E.T. could equally well be Battlestar Galactica or the Death Star / Darth Vader's command ship as it could be the shining blue-white "Star Queen Nebula" M16, which is located in the constellation of Serpens Cauda.

1101140294058205391135301533859025843829

So order is now supposed to be the result of, or coming out of chaos and randomness.

Can a divine creator behind the Universe be explained if we rather accept chaos and randomness as nature's fundamental building blocks?

Scientists are trying to merge both Newton's laws and Einstein's Theories of Relativity (both special and general theory of relativity) into the Quantum Theory.

But what is the Quantum Theory all about then? Is it perhaps all about particles and their behavior at the atomic or sub-atomic level? Also particles are responsible for energy and energy structures. It is perhaps more difficult to explain the behavior or inner workings of energy than perhaps matter (by means of particles) itself.

Are particles tangible?

That depends on your measuring technique.
A particle of wood buried in one's hand is intangible to normal x-ray techniques, but is tangible to the sufferer and a trained observer. In the same sort of way an atom is intangible when you use an optical microscope, but use the correct electron microscope it can be observed. Electrons are less tangible because of their relatively high velocities. By the time we get to the Bosons the problems get bigger, because the velocities get higher, while the dimensions (linear for now) get smaller, but given the right equipment, and the right measuring conditions you can visualise them (think back to that wood particle in your hand - given the right x-ray equipment it can be observed).

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

I still predict that particles and things can travel at faster than light speed, without breaking any of Einstein's theories. I don't know how, I'm not a scientist, but I am absolutely sure it is possible.

OOooer...

That sounds just like our friend Guinness reincarnate... You sure you're not his multiple-login alter ego?...


Keep searchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

I don't disagree with him for the point that we have not actually proven beyond a doubt that light speed cannot be broken. We know it would require a great deal of energy to overcome it. So who is to say we don't, in the future, find a source of energy that supplies that power and enables us to move things faster than light

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

It has been shown in experiments that both mass increases and time slows with increased speed and the the changes are directly in line with Relativity's predictions.

At the speed of light time passage drops to zero and mass becomes infinite. It would require not just a massive amount of energy to go faster but an infinite amount of energy to go faster. Because time has stopped, it would also require an infinite amount of time for this infinite amount of energy to make this infinite amount of mass to go faster.

I, like most everyone else, wishes it were otherwise but it is a fact that the speed of light is the absolute speed limit.

---

Pure mathematics is, in its way, the poetry of logical ideas.

Albert Einstein

KenzieB is correct. All of our observations track Einsteins predictions of time speed and gravity perfectly. When we observe supernova, or jets from black holes, everything we observe follows the predictions. This is also true for super colliders. We smash protons at energies that haven't been seen since the beginning of the universe, but no sub-particle travels faster than light. If we aren't seing anything faster than light at these tremendouse energy levels, for both the very massive, and the very small, then it is not reasonable that a workable, containable level of energy would produce different results.

Steve

---

Warning, addicted to SETI crunching!
Crunching as a member of GPU Users Group.
GPUUG Website

I hope we do Chris. One thing I admit I don't understand is the expansion of space. That seems to defy logic, but the mechanism isn't known. Dark energy is really a way to describe that "We don't know, but X quantity of Dark Energy is required to balance observations." The same can be said for Dark Matter, but with the effect of keeping galaxies from flying apart.

In dealing with particle physics, or enormous energy levels, there is no indication that anything travels, or could travel faster than light. Usually a new discovery would be based on an observation that goes outside the structured knowledge, but we don't even have that.

Steve

---

Warning, addicted to SETI crunching!
Crunching as a member of GPU Users Group.
GPUUG Website

Hi Martin, no it is me, I promise! JG was an amusing distraction, but he made too many outrageous claims, and gave misleading information. When called out and challenged, he disappeared. I base my prediction upon my opinion, that I believe that ET has been here before. That would not be realistically possible without FTL travel. Of course I cannot prove it, and you all know that, but hey, a man is entitled to his thoughts.

Steve, I simply don't know how FTL travel could work, certainly not within the laws of physics and the universe as we currently know them. Kenz and ES99 have a far better understanding of scientific principles than I do, but again they are both constrained within current knowledge, as indeed you are. Yes it will need some massive breakthrough. For the reason I gave above I think it will happen one day, sadly I won't be around to see it.

We should hope JG is working on his book so he can amaze the world.

---